So, it looks like Yucca Mountain is out

[feralkid]

Fusion Reactor Fuel.

That was what was supposed to happen with it, and was the only reason Congress ever approved Nuclear power in this country.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: geno
Another vote for "rocket to the sun"

But seriously though, it's obvious a more permanent solution has to be found. While I'm not happy to hear the Yucca project is being halted, I think the continued use of it would slow development of a real solution. This may be a good move to help motivate an improved solution.

Yucca could not have held the current waste inventory, let alone the future.
It was a stopgap measure that was way to small and not well thought out.

Our rail system is succeptable to failure/interference.
Many areas did not even want the casks to be shipped through their railyards.

 

[SammyJr]

Reprocess? That should have been the solution from day one.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: SammyJr
Reprocess? That should have been the solution from day one.

Yup, but they banned it, because it can make weapons grade material if you recycle the fuel too many times.

Which of course makes total sense for the most nucler armed nation in the world.

So they blocked reprocessing, and they blocked storage... Our energy needs are ever-increasing and there's no such thing as "clean coal". We cant get enough power from renewable energy and fusion research funding is hard to find and slow to surface once its granted...

Further excaberating the problem is the oil issue, when all cars go full electric in 25 years or so our electricity demand will skyrocket...

Maybe we need some kind of national education program on nuclear power... I really dont know of a real solution to a problem that is mainly caused by misinformation and irrational fear.

 

[frostedflakes]

And unfortunately it sounds like the Obama admin isn't too keen on reprocessing either.

 

[geno]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: geno
Another vote for "rocket to the sun"

But seriously though, it's obvious a more permanent solution has to be found. While I'm not happy to hear the Yucca project is being halted, I think the continued use of it would slow development of a real solution. This may be a good move to help motivate an improved solution.

What a great idea that is...

Rocket tech is no where NEAR perfect (or even reliable enough to trust it to blast waste into space). If we get a space elevator, then fine I'm with ya. As long as we are launching it from Earth though, I'm 100% against it.

Unless we can use Kal-e-fornia as a launch site....

lol it was a joke, hence the "But seriously" that followed it up

 

[CLite]

As a nuclear engineer I'm pissed. I feel like pointing out a few things.......

Canadian natural ore is almost more highly enriched than the spent fuel we are dispossing, quick google link if you don't really believe me (http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/cnf_sectionE.htm). Unfortunately they don't plot the 20% uranium ore that is actually being mined in Canada, it is intensely radioactive, all automated mining because people can't get close to the site.

The second point is that nuclear waste recycling is the future of the nuclear industry. Unfortunately it is economically pointless as there is tons of natural uranium ore and mining the stuff is a hell of a lot cheaper. Carter (i.e. worst president in history, betrayer of engineers) instituted legislation to prevent recycling because he thought it would set an example to stop proliferation. His plan sucked donkey balls and now France is technologically superior to us in this field.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

The research supporting Yucca was very biased and controlled by the Feds.

Everytime the research is brought into the open, more errors in it are found and/or bias toward releasing results.

That's bound to happen when you are trying to hypothesize how well a man-made structure will last over 1000000 years.

 

[JKing106]

Originally posted by: CLite
As a nuclear engineer I'm pissed. I feel like pointing out a few things.......

Canadian natural ore is almost more highly enriched than the spent fuel we are dispossing, quick google link if you don't really believe me (http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/cnf_sectionE.htm). Unfortunately they don't plot the 20% uranium ore that is actually being mined in Canada, it is intensely radioactive, all automated mining because people can't get close to the site.

The second point is that nuclear waste recycling is the future of the nuclear industry. Unfortunately it is economically pointless as there is tons of natural uranium ore and mining the stuff is a hell of a lot cheaper. Carter (i.e. worst president in history, betrayer of engineers) instituted legislation to prevent recycling because he thought it would set an example to stop proliferation. His plan sucked donkey balls and now France is technologically superior to us in this field.

Those damn French! It's bad enough if it wasn't for them, we'd still be an English colony, but then they make better Nuke sludge than us?! And how dare Carter be a real human being instead of a cowboy wanna be sociopath! We love our sociopath Presidents! Let's go kill some brown people!

 

[CLite]

Originally posted by: JKing106

Originally posted by: CLite
As a nuclear engineer I'm pissed. I feel like pointing out a few things.......

Canadian natural ore is almost more highly enriched than the spent fuel we are dispossing, quick google link if you don't really believe me (http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/cnf_sectionE.htm). Unfortunately they don't plot the 20% uranium ore that is actually being mined in Canada, it is intensely radioactive, all automated mining because people can't get close to the site.

The second point is that nuclear waste recycling is the future of the nuclear industry. Unfortunately it is economically pointless as there is tons of natural uranium ore and mining the stuff is a hell of a lot cheaper. Carter (i.e. worst president in history, betrayer of engineers) instituted legislation to prevent recycling because he thought it would set an example to stop proliferation. His plan sucked donkey balls and now France is technologically superior to us in this field.

Those damn French! It's bad enough if it wasn't for them, we'd still be an English colony, but then they make better Nuke sludge than us?! And how dare Carter be a real human being instead of a cowboy wanna be sociopath! We love our sociopath Presidents! Let's go kill some brown people!

Are you insane? First of all I have nothing agaisnt the French, I am just angry we lost our technical edge in that particular field. Secondly I voted for Obama and disagreed with almost every decision Busy made during his presidency (except perhaps energy policy). In the end my morals regarding a few topics surpassed my desire to see a more practical energy policy (ala McCain). Nice that you assume I'm some cowboy sociopath though. You're clearly a partisan hack that couldn't imagine someone having opinions on different subjects that span the party lines.

Anyways, the reason Carter is the worst president in history is because he systematically dismantled our Nuclear field by bad mouthing it which destroyed the investor support for it and also by crippling long term technology development with pointless laws. He turned his back on the engineering sector in order to earn brownie points with the voting block. It was pathetic and that is why any engineer in the nuclear field remembers his disgusting presidency with bitterness.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Old news, but I guess I missed it (and I'm assuming most of P&N as well, since there wasn't any discussion about it, even in the budget threads). The FY 2010 budget basically cuts off funding for Yucca Mountain, stopping the project dead in its tracks. In a Senate hearing, Energy Secretary Steven Chu confirmed that Yucca Mountain is off the table. Of course no alternative has been offered yet.

http://www.rgj.com/article/20090306/NEWS/903060430/1321

So, what now? Maybe New Mexico? It's already home to WIPP, I guess another dump site couldn't hurt.

Yucca was too small from the beginning. We had enough waste to fill Yucca to 130% . Still it would have stored a good portion. There is a lot of research going on with fusion reactors that would take that waste and burn it as fuel. The main problem with the waste is all the cost associated with handling it. I don't think people realize that a nuclear power plant have to store waste for 10-20 years on site before it is even safe enough to transport. Then it has to be stored another 5-10K years before it would be safe to expose to people again.

We also need to keep working on the efficiency of the material we use. Reactors only use about 10% of the material used for fuel before it has to be removed due to losing its effectiveness. That is 90% waste.

Hopefully fusion will be the answer.

I live about 50 miles from a plant that provides power to me. I'm not concerned about waste at all right now. It is still one of the cheapest forms of power.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Old news, but I guess I missed it (and I'm assuming most of P&N as well, since there wasn't any discussion about it, even in the budget threads). The FY 2010 budget basically cuts off funding for Yucca Mountain, stopping the project dead in its tracks. In a Senate hearing, Energy Secretary Steven Chu confirmed that Yucca Mountain is off the table. Of course no alternative has been offered yet.

http://www.rgj.com/article/20090306/NEWS/903060430/1321

So, what now? Maybe New Mexico? It's already home to WIPP, I guess another dump site couldn't hurt.

I say we store our nuclear waste in France... fukem!

 

[CLite]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Old news, but I guess I missed it (and I'm assuming most of P&N as well, since there wasn't any discussion about it, even in the budget threads). The FY 2010 budget basically cuts off funding for Yucca Mountain, stopping the project dead in its tracks. In a Senate hearing, Energy Secretary Steven Chu confirmed that Yucca Mountain is off the table. Of course no alternative has been offered yet.

http://www.rgj.com/article/20090306/NEWS/903060430/1321

So, what now? Maybe New Mexico? It's already home to WIPP, I guess another dump site couldn't hurt.

Yucca was too small from the beginning. We had enough waste to fill Yucca to 130% . Still it would have stored a good portion. There is a lot of research going on with fusion reactors that would take that waste and burn it as fuel. The main problem with the waste is all the cost associated with handling it. I don't think people realize that a nuclear power plant have to store waste for 10-20 years on site before it is even safe enough to transport. Then it has to be stored another 5-10K years before it would be safe to expose to people again.

We also need to keep working on the efficiency of the material we use. Reactors only use about 10% of the material used for fuel before it has to be removed due to losing its effectiveness. That is 90% waste.

Hopefully fusion will be the answer.

I live about 50 miles from a plant that provides power to me. I'm not concerned about waste at all right now. It is still one of the cheapest forms of power.

You are slightly off with the fusion reactors using fission products as fuel. I'm fairly sure you are referring to actinide burner reactors "fast reactors". Argonne national labs had a integral fast reactor they were trying to build but Clinton had to fucking cancel it in '94, probably my biggest pet peeve with his presidency. It doesn't use fusion, but it basically produces extra neutrons to de-toxify nuclear waste, burning off the long lived nuclear components.

A good read if you are interested in the subject:
(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/.../interviews/till.html

Actual fusion reactor fuel must be very low in nuclear charge, that is why they use the D-T (deuterium/tritium) combination. You just can't have some fusion plant where the input is nuclear waste and the output is energy.

Anyways, I agree with hoping for fusion being the future. My professor for Plasma Physics was very involved with the ITER project, and he created a lot of excitement in the classroom for what fusion has to offer.

Also, your figures for Yucca are off, I imagine you are including military waste and perhaps inflating the commerical figure. Additionally the initial permit for Yucca does not really account for the full potential of the site. They could of easily doubled the capacity with future permits.

 

[winnar111]

Just package it up and drop it in Tehran.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: winnar111
Just package it up and drop it in Tehran.

Brilliant.

 

[JKing106]

Originally posted by: CLite

Originally posted by: JKing106

Originally posted by: CLite
As a nuclear engineer I'm pissed. I feel like pointing out a few things.......

Canadian natural ore is almost more highly enriched than the spent fuel we are dispossing, quick google link if you don't really believe me (http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/cnf_sectionE.htm). Unfortunately they don't plot the 20% uranium ore that is actually being mined in Canada, it is intensely radioactive, all automated mining because people can't get close to the site.

The second point is that nuclear waste recycling is the future of the nuclear industry. Unfortunately it is economically pointless as there is tons of natural uranium ore and mining the stuff is a hell of a lot cheaper. Carter (i.e. worst president in history, betrayer of engineers) instituted legislation to prevent recycling because he thought it would set an example to stop proliferation. His plan sucked donkey balls and now France is technologically superior to us in this field.

Those damn French! It's bad enough if it wasn't for them, we'd still be an English colony, but then they make better Nuke sludge than us?! And how dare Carter be a real human being instead of a cowboy wanna be sociopath! We love our sociopath Presidents! Let's go kill some brown people!

Are you insane? First of all I have nothing agaisnt the French, I am just angry we lost our technical edge in that particular field. Secondly I voted for Obama and disagreed with almost every decision Busy made during his presidency (except perhaps energy policy). In the end my morals regarding a few topics surpassed my desire to see a more practical energy policy (ala McCain). Nice that you assume I'm some cowboy sociopath though. You're clearly a partisan hack that couldn't imagine someone having opinions on different subjects that span the party lines.

Anyways, the reason Carter is the worst president in history is because he systematically dismantled our Nuclear field by bad mouthing it which destroyed the investor support for it and also by crippling long term technology development with pointless laws. He turned his back on the engineering sector in order to earn brownie points with the voting block. It was pathetic and that is why any engineer in the nuclear field remembers his disgusting presidency with bitterness.

Let me get this right: you're calling a man who won the Nobel Peace Prize the worst President in history because he opposed a power supply process that takes more energy to run that it produces? That produces waste that is incredibly hazardous to all forms of life on the planet? You talk about him hindering power progress when Reagan had the solar array removed from the White House that Carter installed? What the hell is wrong with you? Are you one of those prostitutes that are called "Lobbyists" these days, getting paid to push an insane agenda?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: JKing106
because he opposed a power supply process that takes more energy to run that it produces?

wut?

Is that you Steeplerot?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
-snip-
Really what this is all about though is people wanting to shut down the entire nuclear industry.

Yep

Fern

 

[BrownTown]

Originally posted by: CLite
Carter (i.e. worst president in history, betrayer of engineers) instituted legislation to prevent recycling because he thought it would set an example to stop proliferation. His plan sucked donkey balls and now France is technologically superior to us in this field.

Just as point of fact, reprocessing IS legal in this country, all Carter did was cut off government funding for reprocessing, private businesses could still do it if they were able to get through the red tape (which they can't). Really, reprocessing does NOT make sense given how cheap uranium is right now (uranium costs 1/3 of what copper does for example which might surprise some here), but it may make sense in the future which is why this spent fuel is so valuable. People act like its a terrible waste product, but in reality some day it will likely be very valuable.

Originally posted by: winnar111
Just package it up and drop it in Tehran.

They would probably gladly except it TBH, lots of free uranium and plutonium.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

What now? As a nation we will dig small holes and bury our heads in them.

 

[piasabird]

Let each state store its own nuclear waste.

 

[CLite]

Originally posted by: BrownTown

Originally posted by: CLite
Carter (i.e. worst president in history, betrayer of engineers) instituted legislation to prevent recycling because he thought it would set an example to stop proliferation. His plan sucked donkey balls and now France is technologically superior to us in this field.

Just as point of fact, reprocessing IS legal in this country, all Carter did was cut off government funding for reprocessing, private businesses could still do it if they were able to get through the red tape (which they can't). Really, reprocessing does NOT make sense given how cheap uranium is right now (uranium costs 1/3 of what copper does for example which might surprise some here), but it may make sense in the future which is why this spent fuel is so valuable. People act like its a terrible waste product, but in reality some day it will likely be very valuable.

*edit: actual correct information on the ban"

I really dislike Carter because he was a nuclear engineer who spread dis-information to the common public. His true legacy is the death of future investment in the building of nuclear power plants after TMI. He was truly ignorant about the risks of proliferation due to the reprocessing cycle. Also I already posted in this thread about how reprocessing is not cost effective given the cost of mined uranium, however I don't think this should of precluded us from maintaining our technical superiority in the field.

Information on the ban:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=30475

Bush was thinking about lifting the ban but environmentalists went nuts. Too bad they are ignorant pieces of shit, who don't realize that the first step in the process being actinides burners would actually eliminate the worst of the long term radiation.


To JKing106
You have no idea what you are talking about, your post is a rambling string of ignorant sentences. Fission power does NOT take more energy than it produces. You are confusing nuclear fission with fusion power in it's current state. Second of all this thread has nothing to do with Ronald Reagan, I didn't even like a lot of the man's policies, I'm not sure why you brought him up. I'm not a lobbyist I actually do productive work in industry, as opposed to you trolling forums discussing topics you have no clue about.

 

[dawp]

Originally posted by: CLite

Originally posted by: BrownTown

Originally posted by: CLite
Carter (i.e. worst president in history, betrayer of engineers) instituted legislation to prevent recycling because he thought it would set an example to stop proliferation. His plan sucked donkey balls and now France is technologically superior to us in this field.

Just as point of fact, reprocessing IS legal in this country, all Carter did was cut off government funding for reprocessing, private businesses could still do it if they were able to get through the red tape (which they can't). Really, reprocessing does NOT make sense given how cheap uranium is right now (uranium costs 1/3 of what copper does for example which might surprise some here), but it may make sense in the future which is why this spent fuel is so valuable. People act like its a terrible waste product, but in reality some day it will likely be very valuable.

*edit: actual correct information on the ban"

I really dislike Carter because he was a nuclear engineer who spread dis-information to the common public. His true legacy is the death of future investment in the building of nuclear power plants after TMI. He was truly ignorant about the risks of proliferation due to the reprocessing cycle. Also I already posted in this thread about how reprocessing is not cost effective given the cost of mined uranium, however I don't think this should of precluded us from maintaining our technical superiority in the field.

Information on the ban:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=30475

Bush was thinking about lifting the ban but environmentalists went nuts. Too bad they are ignorant pieces of shit, who don't realize that the first step in the process being actinides burners would actually eliminate the worst of the long term radiation.


To JKing106
You have no idea what you are talking about, your post is a rambling string of ignorant sentences. Fission power does NOT take more energy than it produces. You are confusing nuclear fission with fusion power in it's current state. Second of all this thread has nothing to do with Ronald Reagan, I didn't even like a lot of the man's policies, I'm not sure why you brought him up. I'm not a lobbyist I actually do productive work in industry, as opposed to you trolling forums discussing topics you have no clue about.

You have to remember that Carter was President during the 3 Mile Island incident and that had a big impact on how the country and the government viewed nuclear power at the time. It was kind of a no win situation for him as the opinion of the whole country changed after that.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Let each state store its own nuclear waste.

Wouldn't that spread the chance of disaster?

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: CLite

Originally posted by: BrownTown

Originally posted by: CLite
Carter (i.e. worst president in history, betrayer of engineers) instituted legislation to prevent recycling because he thought it would set an example to stop proliferation. His plan sucked donkey balls and now France is technologically superior to us in this field.

Just as point of fact, reprocessing IS legal in this country, all Carter did was cut off government funding for reprocessing, private businesses could still do it if they were able to get through the red tape (which they can't). Really, reprocessing does NOT make sense given how cheap uranium is right now (uranium costs 1/3 of what copper does for example which might surprise some here), but it may make sense in the future which is why this spent fuel is so valuable. People act like its a terrible waste product, but in reality some day it will likely be very valuable.

*edit: actual correct information on the ban"

I really dislike Carter because he was a nuclear engineer who spread dis-information to the common public. His true legacy is the death of future investment in the building of nuclear power plants after TMI. He was truly ignorant about the risks of proliferation due to the reprocessing cycle. Also I already posted in this thread about how reprocessing is not cost effective given the cost of mined uranium, however I don't think this should of precluded us from maintaining our technical superiority in the field.

FYI Carter was not actually a nuclear engineer, although he was interested. He served on board a Diesel submarine (but left the service before the Nautilus was launched). He took one intro course on nuclear engineering but never finished a degree or program.